"What rhetoric do you remember being employed during and in the aftermath of 9/11?"
Surely, it's easy to agree that Aristotelian method is heavily employed; the President stood before Congress, and the entire United States, asking for a declaration of war. Pathos was the heaviest lifter in all the speeches, which is no surprise - Americans were reeling with shock and emotion afterward. However, after reading the introduction in B+H, I now believe the rhetoric also took on the characteristics of the Medieval period. To quote the book: "They saw rhetoric as part of the hated Greco-Roman culture, imbued with the hopeless moral corruption of the pagan world. Moreover, rhetorical invention generates probable knowledge through the commonplaces and the enthymeme, but Christian knowledge is absolute" (B+H 8). Our beloved nation built on Christian values must now step up and defeat the Islamic terrorists who hate everything we believe, and we will be victorious.
Before the President spoke to the Nation, the military knew we were going to war. To many of my "generation" (with time of service just beginning near the end of the Cold War and forward), the events of 9/11 were a culmination of perceived weaknesses in our foreign policy - starting with the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, then the bombing of the USS Cole. (Some of my peers remember Beirut and the La Belle disco in Berlin.) We didn't see this so much as a war against Islamic terrorists as much as a war against terrorism in general - this was the last straw in a long line of ineffective policies and now, we could finally do something about it. If another terrorist organization had perpetrated these actions, the result would have been the same.
The latter makes a more logical enthymeme. The emergence of ISIS(ISIL) and the videos of beheadings, reinforces the premise that belligerent Islamic militants are still dangerous and because of this, despite the toll on the military and the questionable strategies and objectives, the US is still the righteous bearer of the standard of peace.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSee below.
DeleteEnthymemic arguments related to war are derived from values most (all?) nations possess. For instance, when it comes to nationhood and warfare, this enthymemic argument could work:
ReplyDeleteHidden assumption: nations believe in and work to uphold their sovereignty.
Major Premise: All nations will defend themselves from attack.
Minor Premise: Nation X attacks Nation Y.
Conclusion: Thus, Y defends itself against X (so that Y's sovereignty will be maintained).
In this sense, logic is infused with public values, and enthymemic reasoning works to serve Just War Theory.
Agreed. Enthymeme, in my opinion, is the quick way to get public support for an unpopular decision. For instance, putting boots back in Iraq to counter ISIS requires the your example, though I believe the "sovereignty" in this instance is American lives (the two reporters).
DeleteGood connection to enthymemic rhetoric and that of the middle ages. It seems in wartime rhetoric there is often the push toward goodness, and always being on the side of right, and then demonizing the enemy (not suggesting our enemy wasn't in the wrong, and that the current enemy who America is bombing isn't also not in the wrong). But, there is a connection to a communal audience that makes rhetorical decision-making go over easier. Perhaps the events during 9/11 because of being broadcast live, gave the sense of America as one community being attacked that, if it weren't live, would have then required a different sort of rhetorical appeal to make us consider the war on terror as a common evil. I was struck by just listening to the PM of England falling in line with US policy announced a week or so ago about how to tackle and dismantle ISIS.
ReplyDeleteI have to echo the comments and questions I posted in Michael's blog. If the criticism of the Sophists was that they allowed anyone - skilled/unskilled, moral/amoral - to engage in rhetoric, who determines these qualifications? It is easy for us to demonize other groups. Sometimes this demonization is valid, but other times it is purely contextual and the groups being deemed unworthy see themselves as moral. So, how do we decide this? When do we cross the Sophists line when we use enthymeme to "get public support for an unpopular decision"? What if that unpopular decision is actually not the correct one or what if both sides making the decision are seen as moral - either by themselves or others?
ReplyDelete